Search Results

1. KL & KC v EJ Ltd [2022] NZDT 269 (20 December 2022) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...sale, the estimated delivery date would be on or around mid-May 2022. Was the unit provided in accordance with the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and the agreement between the parties? 5. Section 5A of the CGA sets out that where a supplier is responsible for arranging for the delivery of, goods to a consumer there is a guarantee that the goods will be received by the consumer, CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 (a) at a time, or within a period, agreed between the supp...

2. B Ltd v H Ltd [2022] NZDT 270 (20 December 2022) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...cancelling party or significantly increases their burden. I accept the evidence PO that the time when the trailer would be made was agreed to at the outset of the contract and was impliedly an essential term. In any event, the evidence of the message response from H Ltd shows that it agreed that B Ltd was entitled to cancel the contract and agreed to refund the deposit. What loss can B Ltd prove it has incurred that it is entitled to be compensated for? 9. Section 43 to 49 of the...

3. Greer v Police (Strike-Out Application) [2022] NZHRRT 51 [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...December 2015 and an amended statement of reply on 12 April 2017. [3] An initial teleconference was held in 2017 and Mr Greer was granted leave to file an application seeking further particulars relating to the statement of reply. However, in response to that direction, Mr Greer filed a 19-page memorandum that was rejected by the Tribunal for containing scandalous and offensive statements. [4] By Minute dated 28 January 2020, following a teleconference, the Tribunal directed Mr Gre...

4. Soulsby v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late appeal to the District Court) [2023] NZACC 81 [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...issued an Initial Minute which directed that Mr Soulsby, by 16 May 2023, formally apply for leave to file the appeal out of time and set out the reasons why the appeal was filed late; and that the Corporation, by 30 May 2023, file a memorandum in response. 2 [3] On 3 May 2023, Mr Hack for the Corporation submitted that it was not prejudiced by the appeal and did not oppose leave being granted to file the appeal late. [4] On 7 May 2023, Mr Robinson’s submission addressed the...

5. OE v UC [2023] NZDT 47 (8 February 2023) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...UC’s representative, BC, also did not pick up his phone to attend the hearing. In another email from UC at 10:11am, she stated that she didn’t think that due to personal circumstances BC would be ‘strong enough for the hearing today’. It is the responsibility of UC to ensure that her representative CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 is available to attend the hearing, and despite having knowledge of BC’s circumstances since ‘last week’ UC had not contacted the Tribu...

6. [2023] NZEmpC 77 Halse v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...Mr Halse’s application for judgment by default. It says there is no reasonable or legal basis for Mr Halse’s application, and that the application is an abuse of the process of the Court. It points to the legislation and says it is not the responsibility of the Hamilton City Council, as defendant, to file a statement of claim to Mr Halse’s challenge. In opposing the application to strike out, Mr Halse adopts the same arguments as in his application for judgment by default,...

7. UH Ltd v BI [2023] NZDT 13 (12 April 2023) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...the fault herself or cancel the contract. Such remedies are not anticipated by the Act and there is no such right. Further in this case I accept the applicant’s evidence that it had been contacted the seller and after not obtaining a satisfactory response, it had no option but to arrange the repair directly with the dealership. [15] As stated above, a misrepresentation is treated as a breach of the terms of the contract, and the purchaser is entitled to the cost of that breach. There is...

8. NN v IQ [2022] NZDT 250 (6 December 2022) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...NN sold the car as scrap for $300? Did IQ misrepresent the car to NN by describing it as a safe and reliable runabout? 9. The starting point is the principle of caveat emptor or buyer beware. The general position is that the buyer must be responsible for his or her own purchasing decision. 10. In a private sale there are no implied warranties or conditions as to the quality or fitness of goods sold by a person not in trade (s137 Contract and Commercial Law Act CI0301_CIV_...

9. QN & Ors v KN [2024] NZDT 29 (28 February 2024) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...repairs. 15. I find that repair costs as set out on the [panel beaters] invoice are reasonable and were caused by KN’s negligent driving. 16. While QN was not the owner of the car, the arrangement she had with the owners was that she would be responsible for damage caused while the car was in her possession. QN paid the invoice for the repairs on 29 November 2023. 17. The Tribunal notes that the parties met in November 2023 and signed a document entitled “Debt Agreement...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 137 Auckland Council v Sharma [pdf, 242 KB]

    ...not clean or geotechnically suitable; proper geotechnical methods were not used to ensure the future stability of the fill; and the required expert supervision and certification did not occur. [5] A series of abatement notices were issued in response to the breaches observed. The notices required compliance with the resource consent conditions, the cessation of any non-compliant earthworks and remediation of adverse effects. However, consent conditions were not completed, furthe...